Both men do bring out some interesting quotes and Webster makes some charges
that must be answered, that will be my undertaking in this webpage. I am dividing
my response into smaller sections than Mr. Webster's original, this part will deal
primarily with what is being said in regard to St. Augustine.

An Answer to the
Refutation of the Misrepresentations of the Writings of William
Webster and of the Church Fathers by Roman Catholic, Stephen
Ray, in His Book Upon This Rock; by William Webster

by Scott Windsor (aka CathApol on IRC)

The
First Misrepresentation

To keep track of where I am quoting from Webster's page, I will,
periodically, include some of his headings.

The first point I wish to bring out comes from Webster's email to
Ray:

Webster's Email to Ray

Thanks for your e-mail, As to your
questions let me make this brief comment. No father denies that
Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The
issue is how the Fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply
did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that
primacy and succession were "exclusively" related to
the bishops of Rome. They do not apply the special titles they
attribute to Peter to the bishops of Rome and what is more they
often attribute the same titles to the other apostles. The most
explicit denial of a Petrine primacy in the Roman Catholic sense
comes from Augustine which I have documented in the book where
he states in exegeting the rock of Matthew 16:18 that Christ
did not build his Church on a man but on Peter's confession.
He specifically separates Peter's faith from Peter's person and
if the Church is not built upon the person of Peter there is
no papal office. This is not to say that the Rome did not have
authority in the eyes of the fathers. But Rome did not have exclusive
authority. The ecclesiology of the early Church was one of conciliarity
which was shared by all the major patriarchal sees. Rome was
the only patriarchal see in the West and therefore held authority
in the West, though in the beginning this was not universal but
regional, as Rufinus' translation of the Nicene Council makes
clear. I would strongly urge you to read the historical works
that I have referenced from the various Orthodox, Roman Catholic
and Protestant historians. John Meyendorff is especially good.
Hope this is helpful (Personal
email from William Webster to Stephen Ray).

Windsor Responds:

Webster charges, "This is not to say that Rome did not have
authority in the eyes of the (F)athers. But Rome did not have
exclusive authority." No, Rome did not have exclusive authority,
and never had it, and never claimed to have it! Each bishop, in his
own diocese, has the equivalent authority of the Pope over his
jurisdiction. When the Pope acts in his capacity as Bishop of Rome, he
is no different, other than a "first among equals," than the
rest of the bishops over their own jurisdictions. The Pope does also
have another title, "Vicar of Christ" wherein he stands in
Christ's place here on earth, over Christ's Church. This authority is
clearly given to St. Peter when "The Good Shepherd" told Peter,
"Feed My lambs...Tend My sheep...Feed My sheep" (John 21:16-17).
In this sequence, Jesus is speaking directly to Peter, and not to any of
the rest of the Apostles, all of whom are also present (minus Judas). So
there is something special about Peter, and the see that he would occupy.
This isn't the position of a tyrant, a king, or a dictator, but a shepherd.
Clearly Jesus left one of the Apostles "in charge" to "tend
(His) sheep," and that one Apostle is St. Peter. This is not an
exclusive authority over the other Apostles - just an added responsibility
for Peter and his successors. Having one Apostle to hold this position is
the unifying factor for all true Christians.

Webster continues on his webpage:

Mr. Ray has purposefully misrepresented
me in his statements. (See what I
mean about adolescent boys on the playground?) He is very aware of
the fact that I deal
extensively with the question he raises in a very forthright manner
in my book. Mr. Rays main argument rests on an argument
from silence, the fact that the Fathers never denied the primacy
of Peter or Petrine succession. Of course they didnt. As
I mentioned in my email they explicitly affirm it. However, in
affirming it they do not interpret it in the same way Rome does
today. That is the point. When Roman apologists
use the term primacy
they mean universal juridisdiction to rule the Church universal.
When they speak of Petrine succession they mean this in an exclusive
sense as applied to the bishops of Rome. But when the Fathers
speak of a Petrine primacy and succession and the primacy of Rome
they mean something quite different. They are not silent on the
issue. They never denied that Rome had a primacy, but it was interpreted
as a primacy of honor since the Church was located in the capital
of the Empire and was the site of the martrydom of Peter and Paul.
It was not a primacy of universal jurisdiction. They never denied
that the Church of Rome had a right to exercise authority. But
that authority was limited in its jurisdiction. But when the meaning
of primacy and rule is couched in the language of Vatican I we
find a vigorous opposition to such claims by the Church Fathers.
There is not silence. The Fathers do speak, and they make it clear
what they mean by the terms they use. They also speak by repudiating
the unlawful claims of Rome as they began to be expressed in the
third century and in all the subsequent centuries of the Church.
Stephen Ray, and Roman apologists in general, are guilty of a
major error of historiography. This is the error of importing
the theological understanding of terms developed in a later age
and to then impose these concepts on the same terms of the writings
of an earlier age, assuming that because they use the same word
you do, that they mean the same thing by it. The heretic, Pelagius,
used the term grace. He did not deny its necessity. But the issue
is not whether he used the word but what he meant by his use of
it. And when we examine his use of the word we find that his understanding
was definitely heretical. In like manner, when we examine the
way the Church Fathers employed the terms they used with respect
to Peter and the meaning of primacy we discover that their understanding
of those terms is very different from Vatican I and present day
Roman Catholic concepts.

Webster shows his misunderstanding of the Roman Catholic position
and definition of "primacy." One must speculate that if
Mr. Webster had known the true teachings of the Catholic Church, he
may never have left it. One has to hope that when he does come to
this understanding, he will return home - where he will be welcomed
as the Prodigal Son was. I also have the hope that Emanon, also a
former Catholic, will also return home. To continue: Primacy is not
a position of universal "authority" per se, but of universal
responsibility to feed, tend and care for Jesus' sheep - the Church.

It is encouraging to note that Mr. Webster does not deny that the
Roman Pontiff does indeed have a primacy of honor, but Peter's
commission from Christ was more than honorary. Peter was to take
Jesus' place as the Shepherd, the one who watches over the sheep.

Webster goes on to charge: "Ray, and (Catholic) apologists in
general, are guilty of a major error of historiography," saying
that we are "importing the theological understanding of terms
developed in a later age and to then impose these concepts on the same
terms of the writings of an earlier age." Well, I would have to
charge that it is rather Mr. Webster that is guilty of this. The
definitions that Protestants use are the new definitions! Protestantism
has only existed for the last 400-500 years, whereas Catholicism is
rooted in the Apostles and Christ Himself! How easy is it for this
new religious movement to come forth and tell us how we
are to define our terminology! Let us recall that the "Great
Founders of Protestantism" (Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, etc.) were
all former Roman Catholics! The got their start by inventing
new definitions for old terms, applying what seemed to be "rational"
arguments, and convincing thousands and eventually millions, to follow
them in their erroneous ways.

Augustine

Next, Mr. Webster turns his attention
toward St. Augustine, but it is
clear to see that Webster contradicts himself with his main tennant,
that "(a)ccording to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects.
Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone."

But, Mr. Webster, it is not the keys that are in question here! Though,
it can be argued that some of the Early Fathers do indeed say the keys
are given only to Peter, let us deal with St. Augustine for now. The
authority of the keys, (which is to bind and loose, retain and/or forgive
sins - another very Catholic position given that men are able to forgive
sins), is given first to St. Peter (Matthew 16:18) and later to the
rest of the Apostles (Matthew 18:18). We concur that this authority
is truly given to all the Apostles, I am not so sure that we concur
that this authority is passed on to their successors, which in Catholic
belief, it surely is - but many Protestants believe this "power"
ended with the end of the Apostolic Age. (We can take that up in a
future debate, if Mr. Webster so chooses to engage me). The point
that Webster, and it would seem most other Protestant apologists miss,
is that Catholics do not base the primacy solely on Matthew 16:18!
The primacy of responsibility is clearly shown in John 21:15-17. And,
the point that Mr. Webster is attempting to make here is that St. Peter
is not given anything different than any of the rest of the Apostles
were given. Hmmm, how about a new name? How about being the only one
commanded to "Feed My sheep...?"

Mr. Webster includes several quotes from St. Augustine, which I will
also leave in place:

This same Peter therefore who had been
by the Rock pronounced blessed, bearing the figure
of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship (Sermon 26).

Hmmm, St. Peter is holding the
"chief place in the Apostleship."
This is supportive of the Catholic definition throughout the ages, including
the present!

The blessed Peter, the first of the
apostles (Sermon
295).

Hmmm, the "blessed Peter,
the first of the apostles." Again,
supportive of St. Peter's "lead" role among the Apostles.

Before his passion the Lord Jesus,
as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles.
Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given
the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the
person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that
he was privileged to hear, To you will I give the keys
of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16:19). After all, it isnt
just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its
unity. So this is the reason for Peters acknowledged preeminence,
that he stood for the Churchs universality and unity, when
he was told, To you I am entrusting, what has in
fact been entrusted to all (Sermon
295).

Here we see Peter, again, being
given preeminence, but a similar
authority given to the rest of the Apostles. Again, completely in line
with current and past Catholic beliefs on the Pope and the college of
bishops.

Previously, of course, he was called
Simon; this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and
that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church.
Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky,
is the Christian people (Sermon
76).

Well, first off I cannot
let this interpretation of "Peter" to
mean "Rocky" go unchallenged. This too seems to be a novel
interpretation that is not reflected by the Early Fathers, nor even
other apologists before this recent time.

Second, we find again St. Augustine acknowledging that St. Peter IS
the representative for the Universal (Catholic) Church.

So then, this selfsame Peter,
blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the
person of the Church, holding chief place in the apostolic ranks
(Sermon 76).

Again, St. Peter is shown to be
"holding chief place in the
apostolic ranks." If he is "chief" how could he be
"the same" as the rest of the Apostles?

For as some things are said which seem
peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear
in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he
is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account
of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples; as it is written,
I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and other passages of like purport: so Judas doth represent those
Jews who were enemies of Christ (Exposition
on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 119).

Again, St. Peter is being
held out as the one to represent the Church
because of "the primacy which he bore among the Disciples."

You will remember that the apostle
Peter, the first of all the apostles, was thrown completely of
balance during the Lords passion (Sermon 147).

Even though St. Peter
stumbled (an example that even the popes that
would follow him would stumble) he was still regarded as "first
of all the apostles."

Christ, you see, built his Church not
on a man but on Peters confession. What is Peters
confession? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Theres the rock for you, theres the foundation, theres
where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld
cannot conquer. (Sermon
229).

This is a figurative passage.
The Church was not physically built upon
"the man" of St. Peter, for he would be crushed in the literal
sense. Jesus foundationally lays the groundwork for the Church on Simon's
confession, but there's more to this chapter! Simon Bar Jona is
renamed Peter here! When God renames someone, there is great significance! (Noting: Abraham, Israel, etc.) None of the other
Apostles were so honored or held up as Simon Bar Jona!

And this Church, symbolized in its
generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account
of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper
personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian,
by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle;
but when it was said to him, I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth, shall be loosed in heaven, he represented the universal
Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations,
that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests,
and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from
which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived
from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called
so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on
this very account the Lord said, On this rock will I build
my Church, because Peter had said, Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God. On this rock, therefore, He
said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For
the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter
himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that
is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which
is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom
of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of
binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially
in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra);
and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the
Rock, Peter as the Church
(Commentary
on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

Again we are shown that St.
Peter is given primacy and is the single
Apostle shown to represent the Church. Where were the other Apostles
at this time? The were right there with St. Peter! Why then does the
Lord single out Simon and give him the name of Peter? If this were
merely an act of symbolism, then why, from this time forward, is Simon
refered to as "Peter?"

Webster continues:Augustine states that Peter
is the first and head of the apostles and that he holds a primacy.
However he does not interpret that primacy in a Roman Catholic
sense. He believes that Peters primacy is figurative in
that he represents the universal Church. Again, he explicitly
states that Christ did not build his Church upon a man but on
Peters confession of faith. Peter is built on Christ the
rock and as a figurative representative of the Church he shows
how each believer is built on Christ. In Augustines view,
Peter holds a primacy or preeminence, but none of this applies
to him in a jurisdictional sense, because he says that Christ
did not build his Church upon a man. We can not get a clearer
illustration that the fathers did indeed separate Peters
confession of faith from Peters person.

This would be a logical
argument, IF not for the fact that
at the begining of Matthew 16 this Apostle is known as "Simon"
and after verse 18 he is known as "Peter." Mr. Webster is
attempting to put a 16th century spin on an ancient text - but wait,
that's what he accuses Catholic apologists of doing!

Webster also states:
"We can not get a clearer illustration that
the fathers did indeed separate Peters confession of faith
from Peters person." Let's take a look at what a few of
the other Early Fathers said:

St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," He says, "that
you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates
of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be
bound in also in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth, they shall
be loosed in heaven."
[Cyprian's first edition:]
And again He says to him after His resurrection: "Feed my sheep."
On him He builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed
the sheep; although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet
He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority
a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others
were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby
it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too,
all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed all by the
Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to
this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
can he still be confident that he is in the Church? The episcopate
is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided
structure. The Church also is one, however widely she has spread
among the multitude through her fruitful increase ... The Church is
bathed in the light of the Lord, and pours her rays over the whole
world; but it is one light that is spread everywhere, and the unity
of her structure is undivided.
[Jurgens 555-556]

Now, does this sound a bit like
Protestantism?! Where is the unity in Protestantism? Today, who would
St. Cyprian say is sitting in the "one chair" of the Church?

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter without
heading, of Cyprian to the Lapsed. A.D, 250
Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and observe, says in the Gospel,
by way of assigning the episcopal dignity and settling the plan of His
Church: "I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And
to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever
things you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
loose on earth, they will be loosed in heaven."
From that time the ordination of bishops and the plan of the Church
flows on through the changes of times and
successions; for the Church is founded upon the bishops, and
every act of the Church is controlled by the same rulers. Since this
has indeed been established by Divine Law, I marvel at the rash boldness
of certain persons who have desired to write me as if they were writing
letters in the name of the Church, "since the Church is established
upon the bishop and upon the clergy and upon all who stand firm
in the faith."
[Jurgens 571]

St. Cyprian again asserts that
the Church is founded upon St. Peter, and that the plan of the Church,
"through the changes of times and successions." Please note
that he specifically mentions successions clearly indicating this
"ability" was handed down from the Apostles to the current time.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of
Cyprian to Quintus, Bishop in Mauretania. A.D. 254/255
...For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His
Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not
claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anthing arrogantly,
so as to say that he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be
obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.
[Jurgens 592a]

Here we find St. Cyprian again
asserting that the Church is indeed built upon Peter.

St. Ephraim, Homilies
Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church.
I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings.
You are the inspector of those who will build my Church for Me. If they
should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn
them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows,
you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to
all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense.
I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution,
and so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have
given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority
over all my treasures![Jurgens 706]

Yet another of the Early Fathers asserting much more than Mr. Webster
would like to admit regarding Petrine authority and foundation.

St. Damasus I, Pope, The Decree of Damasus
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all these prophetic
and evengelic as well as apostolic writings which we have listed as
Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded,
we hav considered that it ought to be announced that although all the
Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one
bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has
been placed at the forefront not by concilliar decisions of other
Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of
our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock
I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against
it; and I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever
you shal have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you
shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."...
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the
Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
The second see, however, is that of Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of
the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and evangelist, who was sent to
Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and
finished hi glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that
at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he
first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians
was first applied, as to a new people.[Jurgens 910u]

Again, another of the Early Fathers affirming the See of Rome as the
"First See" and even though the Church was spreading abroad,
the Roman Church is the focus.

So I have clearly shown that this concept of primacy and papal responsibility
is not a novel idea that began some time after St. Augustine, for I have
shown such evidence generations prior to St. Augustine's birth!

I will close PART ONE here. As time allows I will engage in Mr. Webster's
comments on St. Chrysostom and his other objections to what Mr. Ray wrote.

Wanna buy the books that we are discussing here? Click on the links below!